One Principle To Live By

[HegemonKhan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

well in terms of SCIENCE, life, specifically individual organisms, is defined as having it's own DNA that no other individual organism has.

i'm not going to debate your views because you can of course think/believe whatever u want.

however, science is science. every single human being except galileo thought that the earth didn't move, yet the earth DID move (around the sun), despite humanity's belief at that time. belief doesn't change (science/reality) fact.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

If the beginning of life is the creation of a 'unique' (identical twins? clones?) dna sequence then surely the ending of life is the destruction of the dna sequence. So if I shoot someone in the head with a shotgun their DNA is still intact (and indeed for some time their cells will still be alive) and so they're still alive?

Or if I blow their head off, take a DNA sample and clone them - they're still alive and no murder has been committed?

i'm certain "identical twins" do NOT have the same DNA.

your talking about death, which is NOT understood. death has nothing to do with life.

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

well in terms of SCIENCE, life, specifically individual organisms, is defined as having it's own DNA that no other individual organism has.

i'm not going to debate your views because you can of course think/believe whatever u want.

however, science is science. every single human being except galileo thought that the earth didn't move, yet the earth DID move (around the sun), despite humanity's belief at that time. belief doesn't change (science/reality) fact.

According to science, life also have to be in a production chain.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

what do u mean by "be in a production chain" ?

i am not familiar with this ? could u maybe explain it or be more specific as to what u mean ?

as far as i know of, there's ONLY three things that are able to define life:

1. needs to reproduce because it is able to "die"
2. needs to remove waste because it has to take in "material/stuff" as well
3. has it's own unique DNA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in my other post i had already adressed the issues u raised but i'll do so again...

if anyone thinks that criticism is harm/victimization, than they need to get professional medical help.

the ONLY one who can know if they are wronged/victimized/harmed or not is that person (the target).

*UNFORTUNETELY*, even the target can lie or even possibly "over-react" or "mis-react". yet, it is near impossible for a 3rd party (some one else) to decide if the target was indeed victimized or not. because in all cases we are dealing with humans and their opinions/views, not truth. the closest to truth is what the target thinks/feels. yet, as i said in my first sentence of this paragraph, the target can lie or be mistaken as well.

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

what do u mean by "be in a production chain" ?

i am not familiar with this ? could u maybe explain it or be more specific as to what u mean ?

Well I just used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

Where I guess what comes most close to what I ment was:
"Conventional definition: The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena: [...]
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life."

 

[BobCox2]

Re: One Principle To Live By

Non-living effect does also increase entrophy, we're extremely small compared to the size of the earth and the processes that happens inside earth uses much more energy than we do.



I disagree, it's just a question about when you've responsibility over another person.

I don't care if you deny that 2<3 because it's not much of a difference to you.
It's a widely acknowledged fact and the basis of the most agreed on definition of life you can find in science.
Sheash. I put in a spoiler just for people like you.


Back to my edits now that are on topic.

I Agree with the premise in the 2ed post in the thread that you own your body BTY, hears why, it's part of what I would define as your property.

Property consists of one’s life and all of its non-procreative derivatives. (Whew! - dodged question raised later in #2)

All forms of property came from a combination of "primordial property" (a person's life)[5] and "primary property" (a person's own ideas).[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Joseph_Galambos

 

[PFSS]

Re: One Principle To Live By

i'm certain "identical twins" do NOT have the same DNA.

I thought they came about when an already fertilized egg splits and separates rather than splits and stays together, resulting in two people born from the same fertilization?

your talking about death, which is NOT understood. death has nothing to do with life.

There is Alive and Not Alive - if the thing that makes someone 'Alive' is having unique DNA then surely a corpse is still alive?

If the thing that makes someone "Alive" is consciousness then permanently stopping that consciousness is death.

It seems strange to have totally different ways of defining when a person is alive depending on if you are looking at the beginning and end of their life.

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

I don't care if you deny that 2<3 because it's not much of a diffrence to you.

I don't understand how you can think what is logic to you will be logic for everyone else.

If the thing that makes someone "Alive" is consciousness then permanently stopping that consciousness is death.

Yes that's my view, and I know it potentially removes "life" from animals we believe to alive, but honestly in all reality we don't even know if anything of this is real of we're just brains in a jar, and you/I/we are the only one to be consciouss at all.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

Well I just used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

Where I guess what comes most close to what I ment was:
"Conventional definition: The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena: [...]
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life."

ah okay yes, that would fall under (what i just got done editing into my other post while you were writing this post and now i'm responding to):

2. needs to remove waste because it must take in material/stuff as well

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

if anyone thinks that criticism is harm/victimization, than they need to get professional medical help.

Why? Who are you to define what is normal and what is so unormal that they need threatment?

*UNFORTUNETELY*, even the target can lie or even possibly "over-react" or "mis-react". yet, it is near impossible for a 3rd party (some one else) to decide if the target was indeed victimized or not. because in all cases we are dealing with humans and their opinions/views, not truth. the closest to truth is what the target thinks/feels. yet, as i said in my first sentence of this paragraph, the target can lie or be mistaken as well.

Yes and that's one of the reasons I believe that to use a term like "mess with someone" is not specific enough.

I'm sorry if my debate style of today isn't very constructive, but I'm trying to write short answers so people actually reads what I write.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: One Principle To Live By

I don't understand how you can think what is logic to you will be logic for everyone else.

Because that how we have a meaningful discussion. If you disagree give a argument rather than a denial of agreed on fact or you will quickly be added to ignore lists by those that don't want to reread the argument they presented with a series of flat denials of the posts with no support that take up a page or two of space with a quote followed by your "No It's Not" comment.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

I thought they came about when an already fertilized egg splits and separates rather than splits and stays together, resulting in two people born from the same fertilization?



There is Alive and Not Alive - if the thing that makes someone 'Alive' is having unique DNA then surely a corpse is still alive?

If the thing that makes someone "Alive" is consciousness then permanently stopping that consciousness is death.

It seems strange to have totally different ways of defining when a person is alive depending on if you are looking at the beginning and end of their life.

as u pointed out this is the problem with "death/alive/not alive", we do NOT understand it.

what we don't understand, we shouldn't use and apply it.

what we do understand:

life has 3 requirements (all life shares these things):

1. needs to reproduce because able to "die"
2. needs to remove waste because it needs to take in "materials/stuff"
3. has it's own unique DNA

back to your question of "death", it's a great question that is displayed in the resident evil 1 movie.

even when a person is "dead", the brain still functions (releases electrical charges/synapsis and stuff). the other cells continue to function as well. so why is the person dead anyways or in the first place. science has no idea. we do NOT understand this. we don't understand death. what exactly causes or is why we "Die". no one knows.

that is why, science sticks to what it knows:

life has 3 requirements (all life shares these things):

1. needs to reproduce because able to "die"
2. needs to remove waste because it needs to take in "materials/stuff"
3. has it's own unique DNA

based on this, that single fertilized cell in the mother's womb is NOT hers, it's a completely different organizism, a human baby boy or a human baby girl.

for further support:

100% of the human body has the same DNA (it's 1 individual organism), except for 1 part...mitochondria. mitochondria has different DNA. it is actually a different organism mutually working together with your human cells and their nucleus. (parasite eve is a great game to help familiarize you with mitochondria. in reality, mitochondria has a constant rate of mutation, which allows for scientists to, for one example, actually use it as a "calender" to go back thousands maybe even millions of years and pinpoint date stuff, it's kinda akin to radio-carbon dating with bones in a way. for instance, they found that humanity nearly went extinct from the tobi/tobo/toba? super volcanoe eruption in the far past)

the fertilized egg is no different. think of it as mitochondria. it is another life. the killing of another life is murder. and being that it is an "infant or soon-to-be infant", it's infanticide.

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

Because that how we have a meaningful discussion. If you disagree give a argument rather than a denial of agreed on fact or you will quickly be added to ignore lists by those that don't want to reread the argument they presented with a series of flat denials of the posts with no support that take up a page or two of space with a quote followed by your "No It's Not" comment.

I believe that was what I wrote to you yesterday. Anyway if you're interested in a longer explanation then ask, but I'm not going to write page up and page down if no one reads it anyway, like my experience is with my other posts (that only 2-3 members apparently read).

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

based on this, that single fertilized cell in the mother's womb is NOT hers, it's a completely different organizism, a human baby boy or a human baby girl.

I agree, but as the organizism is dependent on her, she's the one who have the ultimate choose wether or not she wants it to continue to be inside of her.

If we just could create life through other means than what requires a dependent relationship then the abort problem wouldn't be anymore.

Edit: Sorry for double post I apparently have to many pages open, so I lost overview.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

10 year olds are dependant on parents...under your reasoning in your above post, parents can kill their 10 year old child.

everyone is dependant on government, does that mean government can send it's military and genocide/murder it's country's entire population ???

dependancy HAS nothing to do with the taking of life. if something is dependant on me that gives me the right to kill it? this attitude of yours really disturbs me. here in the U.S. when a medical person who is helping the elderly gives them cyanide to kill them, it's murder, as it IS murder.

LIFE (including humans) THE RIGHT TO LIFE, *PERIOD*. dependacy is the most absurd excuss/justification i have yet heard for murder. murdering some one because they look different (like skin color) makes more sense than murdering because that person is dependant on u.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a mother and any person should have the right to do whatever they want with their own body (as long as it doesnt effect others).

that fertilized egg is no longer a part of the mother's body. it's, it's own body. it's, it's own life. if that fertilized egg wants to commit suicide, it should have that right. the mother (or anyone) has NO right to make that decision for another life.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: One Principle To Live By

I believe that was what I wrote to you yesterday. Anyway if you're interested in a longer explanation then ask, but I'm not going to write page up and page down if no one reads it anyway, like my experience is with my other posts (that only 2-3 members apparently read).

I read them but I'm not responding anymore other than to point out the really obvious fallacy's as I find it unprofitable to discuss things with you as you apparently can't understand (I'm was not asking for agreement just that you understood the point I was making) any viewpoint but your own even when the same point is explained 2 or 3 times in successively simpler language.
I ended up laughing at you, and your current denial of 2<3 as a point of fact, and your refusal to understand the use of logic has confirmed my resolve to just ignore you in the future, I not longer feel you are ignorant, your seem to be just a troll,
and not 1/2 as Smrt or entertaining as Johnny or Donny or any other trolls that has a name ending in Y.

You could have give jelly a bad name if you had used a Y

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

10 year olds are dependant on parents...under your reasoning in your above post, parents can kill their 10 year old child.

There's a difference between dependent and have responsibility for.
Something that cannot life without you contesting to it is dependent of you contesting to it.
Something that you have responsibility for is not dependent on you to live, if you fail your responisibility others will most likely take care of the child.

I believe this further answers the rest of the post.

here in the U.S. when a medical person who is helping the elderly gives them cyanide to kill them, it's murder, as it IS murder.

I agree, it's not because the doctor is forced to give her the pill is it now? However the woman is forced to be the one to support the life inside of her if she decides to so, it's her body so it's her decision, that's where the dependacy comes in.

if that fertilized egg wants to commit suicide, it should have that right. the mother (or anyone) has NO right to make that decision for another life.

If the fertilized egg is consciouss, then I agree. However as it's the woman who owns her body (her consciouss will is directly connected to it) then it's up to her if she wants to have the baby or not, no one should be able to force her.

I read them but I'm not responding anymore other than to point out the really obvious fallacy's as I find it unprofitable to discuss things with you as you apparently can't understand any viewpoint but your own even when the same point is explained 2 or 3 times in successively simpler language.

You made 2 or 3 posts, and in none of them you came with a single argument of why what I wrote should or shouldn't be. You even dodged my questions to you, in stead of you kept writing stuff that began to have nothing with the topic, untill you finally started to complain that your emotions came in your way. I still challenge you to answer those questions I asked you in the other thread, likewise I still challenge you to actually come up with counterarguments.

I ended up laughing at you, and your current denial of 2<3 as a point of fact, and your refusal to understand the use of logic has confirmed my resolve to just ignore you in the future, I not longer feel you are ignorant, your seem to be just a troll,
and not 1/2 as Smrt or entertaining as Johnny or Donny or any other trolls that has a name ending in Y.

I have never denied 2<3, I've wondered how you can assume that what you believe to be logic should be logic for everyone else, I took it as a methaphor, but now you're writing it as that was exactly what you ment.

If you know what logic is, then please apply it yourself, I believe I do so, and if you have anything relevant about my posts and not my person you want to discuss, then go ahead.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

if an elderly isn't taken care of, they die too. so you're saying that it is okay to kill them with "cyanide" since they are dependant on you for life anyways ?

or if that above is confusing let me try to say it in a better (hopefully clearer) way:

a person is dying. a doctor can save their life. they are dependant on the doctor obviously. if i understood u right, you're saying that somehow because of this the doctor has the right to kill them or to "let them" die ? i'm sorry but *i* can never accept such an absurdity and it disturbs me that u feel/think this way as i see it as blatently wrong/criminal.

i'm sorry but i completely understand things 180 degrees from u.

if some one is dependant on you, it means your duty (responsibility) is to KEEP them alive, NOT kill or "let them" die. failure to do so, means u are punished accordingly, and death is a serious crime and should have a serious punishment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
as to some other point some one made, can't remember and too tired to look up who,

there are many things that are relative (open to differing opinions/views), but there ARE some ABSOLUTES that are NOT open to differing opinions/views. these ABSOLUTES only have a single meaning.

hmm here's an example:

an ABSOLUTE: wronging (like murder=unjustified killing) some one is wrong. there is NO disagreeing with this. there's only ONE VIEW and it's the RIGHT view. this view is: wronging (like murder=unjustified killing) someone is wrong.

another type of ABSOLUTE or UNIVERSAL: terrorism is evil. (i got no problem with iran waging war against the U.S., that's war. shoot and kill or blow up and kill all the U.S. soldiers you want and we'll do the same to iran's soldiers. fly all the planes you want into the pentagon. if civilians get caught that's collateral and sad, but it's war. i got no problem with this). (but, directly and intentionally targeting innocent civilians as your target by sending some one to london to blow up innocent civilian people, moms, dads, kids, teens on buses is terrorism or to jordan to blow up a wedding or flying a plane into a business skyscraper, world trade towers, is terrorism. this is NOT war. it is a crime against humanity. a super heinous crime, period)

a RELATIVE: death penalty. for and against views can be/are right.

 

[jel]

Re: One Principle To Live By

if an elderly isn't taken care of, they die too. so you're saying that it is okay to kill them with "cyanide" since they are dependant on you for life anyways ?

No that's to general, yes some elders needs to be taken care of, and that's the job of others, it's not the job of the mother however. However other elders are very fit and don't need to be taken care of at all. The idea of life where you're dependent of everything in your old age is pretty false, but most seen in America where it often is so due to the bad health in the USA.

I never said it's okay to kill someone who's already alive.

a person is dying. a doctor can save their life. they are dependant on the doctor obviously. if i understood u right, you're saying that somehow because of this the doctor has the right to kill them or to "let them" die ?

Fortunately you didn't understand me right.

if some one is dependant on you, it means your duty (responsibility) is to KEEP them alive, NOT kill or "let them" die. failure to do so, means u are punished accordingly, and death is a serious crime and should have a serious punishment.

There are different degrees of dependantship, I see responsibility as a lower degree than being dependent upon your life.
You decide for yourself what is your responsibility however I know what I'd decide (and that's life if you're in doubt).
What should a punishment help? So when the risk of punishment goes away the person maybe haven't changed at all, in stead of trying to valid a change through rehabilitation.

an ABSOLUTE: wronging (like murder=unjustified killing) some one is wrong. there is NO disagreeing with this

I think you're way off here.
1) Justice is realtive, it depends on who you ask. For me killing can never be justified so for me murder = killing.
2) Take a country where they kill eachother for stuff they wouldn't do in another country. In the other country it's unjustified so it's murder, but in the first country they believe it's justified. The two parts will disagree here.
3) I guess what you mean is that murder is always wrong, yes I agree with it, but it's still relative, do you honestly think serial-killers agree?

I believe your second example to be wrong as well, I believe those who commit to terrorism do so due to someone in a higher stance (that actually makes the calls) is affected by a whole other view of the world, here terrorism isn't evil but necessary apparently. So relative again.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: One Principle To Live By

i hate this....GROWLESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

wrote a ton of stuff and lost all of it..ughn....

sorry jel, so much for my response.....